7 ms·

I doubt that Apple will build a significant backdoor. Most likely they will figure out some symbolic way to accommodate this law, exploiting the vague wording.

• cronix 8y ago
  > The nuclear option is probably to just stop selling their products in Australia. Someone needs to. With EU laws, Australian laws, US laws, and more and more every day, the internet is rapidly becoming a tool of the least common denominator. In other words, whatever country has the toughest laws will govern the planetary internet system as all others will have to follow by extension. Apple, for example, can't make an iphone for every country to comply with that countries individual laws that differ from every other country, which also change with a regular basis. Of course though, there will always be hackers skating on top relatively free. We're becoming a two-tiered internet. The relatively few who know how to get around the restrictions, and everybody else. All Apple has to do is float the possibility they may not sell their products in Australia anymore, and point out why. The rest would take care of itself.
  • hazz99 8y ago
    As an Australian with Apple products, I really hope Apple pulls out of the market. Some large entity definitely needs to take a stand.
    • quicklime 8y ago
      In this specific case, I hope that's the outcome. But in the general case, I hope we don't end up in a world where global megacorps have that much sway over governments (maybe we're in that world already...)
      • hamhock666 8y ago
        I don't think it is necessarily the sway of corporations as much as the sway of the citizens. If Apple got out of Australia it could cause a lot of media attention which could get citizens riled up, especially if they could no longer get Apple products.
        • cronix 8y ago
          > If Apple got out of Australia it could cause a lot of media attention which could get citizens riled up All they'd really have to do is announce that they are considering it. Just write up an analysis and stick it on their website. The world will notice, immediately. How many hours do you think it would take before it was a major news story everywhere?
  • aaaaaaaaaab 8y ago
    >In other words, whatever country has the toughest laws will govern the planetary internet system as all others will have to follow by extension Just like how you eat 90% halal whether you’re muslim or not :) https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
  • IdiocyInAction 8y ago
    The alternative, that may very well come to pass, is that the internet will cluster into different subnetworks for different ideologies. I could very well see that happen with the EU. The golden times for the internet are over anyway. It went from an optimistic dream of free expression of information to a platform for delivering ads.
    • hxsvui 8y ago
      The Internet was English speaking, western and had a keyboard with the Latin alphabet. These days are over, but it's injust to argue with ideology and a negative tone here. The Internet serves people all-over the world and must respect local laws, because it serves the local people. Also, free expression is stronger than ever before. You can now even claim your opinion is a fact.
  • discordance 8y ago
    Apple is required by law in Japan to make iPhones make a sound when taking a photo, and they complied. These new voyuer laws in Australia are obviously much more severe, but there is precedent for a company to customise phones by jurisdiction.
    • cronix 8y ago
      A software tweak is a lot easier to change than hardware accelerated encryption.
    • dan-robertson 8y ago
      These things are quite obviously very different and I can’t find a way to read this in good faith (except perhaps from an extreme libertarian point of view), let alone in a good light. One is a law requiring phones to try to alert people whose privacy is being invaded in some circumstances. The other is a law requiring phones to invade people’s privacy in some circumstances. I think it is quite reasonable to follow the former, just as it could be reasonable for laws to require phones to broadcast tsunami warnings or meet various antitrust requirements.
      • AnaniasAnanas 8y ago
        > One is a law requiring phones to try to alert people whose privacy is being invaded in some circumstances. A law that restricts my freedom to customize my device. Plus their privacy was being invaded from the moment that I looked at them, taking a photo would not change anything. > just as it could be reasonable for laws to require phones to broadcast tsunami warnings As long as it is configurable, sure.
        • et2o 8y ago
          This is the logic of a 12 year old.
    • et2o 8y ago
      Camera shutter sounds aren’t a moral issue apple has staked a position on.
  • Jach 8y ago
    > Apple, for example, can't make an iphone for every country to comply with that countries individual laws that differ from every other country, which also change with a regular basis. Well, they can. You can do a lot when you're a trillion dollar company. It's just grossly inefficient and ugly and they'll try to avoid it if they can, sharing as much as possible when they can't, the same way everyone deals with multiple possible configurations they have to support. I too hope they put their foot down, though.
    • cronix 8y ago
      Yes I should have said impractical. I'd hate to think of what a special iPhone would cost just for the Australian market, which is relatively small, should Apple (and others) decide to not foist this on everyone else world-wide. Just come out with different hardware that's easier to hack just for Australia - only to be sold in Australia, and charge appropriately. Make them pay more to be less secure. It would be justifiable if the hardware was different for a smaller market. It's no different than if they came up with their own cellular system that was incompatible with international standards. It would cost more to build for it because it's a small market with unique requirements.
      • azinman2 8y ago
        That would be fundamentally against Apple’s values. Disclosure: I work for Apple.
        • confounded 8y ago
          iMessage decryption keys on servers controlled by the Chinese government went ahead just fine. Values are useful, but not as useful as an attractive stock-price.
• onetimemanytime 8y ago
  >>I doubt that Apple will build a significant backdoor. Most likely they will figure out some symbolic way to accommodate this law, exploiting the vague wording. This is version 1.0. The law can be redrafted to remove any doubts. Once Australia gets it, so will USA and others via sharing agreements (5 eyes).
• smgoller 8y ago
  I for sure believe this is the proper course of action. I also think companies that operate websites with sensitive data should block Australians from using their services because of the large possibility of being accessed by compromised devices. And if you want to go really all the way to full paranoid mode, Australia's peering points should be blackholed/shut off due to security concerns.
• adventured 8y ago
  > It would be a huge hit but not insurmountable I suspect Apple can trivially walk away from Australia as a market if they think it's for a very good cause. It won't be a huge hit, it's a small hit (~1.7% of annual global iPhone sales). Australia is worth maybe $6-$7 billion per year in total sales to Apple. They sell about four million iPhones per year there (9.2m smartphones sold last year, Apple has 44% of the market), then throw in Macs, iPads, watches and services. It's an affluent market and it would suck to give it up, as it'd be very difficult to regain the market share afterward. I'd worry that the reality would be that easy product substitution would make the move meaningless in terms of benefiting Australians (even though it would still be an important moral stand for Apple to take). There would be short-term blowback about it and that would pass in a matter of weeks.
  • brandonjm 8y ago
    > There would be short-term blowback about it and that would pass in a matter of weeks. They could potentially stop selling software products and disable service access entirely. What if all customer photos on iCloud become inaccessible, all iTunes and App purchases become inaccessible and OS updates stop. Then Apple stores shut down, customer support or repairs become unavailable, thousands of jobs are lost. I feel like the blowback would last much longer than a few weeks. That's an extreme response, but if Apple really wanted to get the point across they can easily include it alongside any other threatening proposals.
  • tracker1 8y ago
    I would think if Apple, Google and Samsung all walked away from the Australian market together, they'd get the message.
  • incompatible 8y ago
    I doubt that a typical large company would give up even ~1.7% of its revenue just out of principle. It can also say that "obeying Australian law" is a perfectly good principle. The Australian government has also kindly offered to reimburse the financial costs of complying.
• JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > The nuclear option is probably to just stop selling their products in Australia Or sell a clearly-branded Australia version without the Secure Enclave.
  • angry_octet 8y ago
    Phase 1 - Criminals and people of all types would use imported iPhones. - To counter this the carriers would have to use IMEI filters to only allow approved phones. - Intl visitors would have to get a local handset (probably not such a drama as their corp wouldn't allow bringing the IT gear to Australia anyway, much like going to China). - So you use a local phone for Wifi hotspot and run an imported phone using iMessage/Signal etc. - Carrier locked devices disable hotspot? Special Apple app to only allow sharing to registered devices? Extra madness. OR: - Apple has Australian hosted iMessage zone, when you roam here it tells you and your contacts that your messages might be intercepted by the Au Gov, Click Okay to Continue? - Same for FB/WhatsApp etc. - Non-compliant apps are banned from launching in Australia, baseband asks carrier for updates to this list (bloom filter) daily. - Criminals continue to operate encrypted comms from black market wifi devices, like the old contraband 'unlocked' Raspberry Pi, even though possession of one results in 5y in gaol. - Mandatory GPS location reporting from phones, for public safety. - Warrant requirement is dropped for AI access. Messages flagged by AI get auto warrants. - Spook's are unable to sort wheat from chaff, terrorist attacks continue. Phase 2 - Political activists start getting convicted for conspiracy to plan illegal gatherings, spreading Fake News, etc, based on their messages. - Social credit system to crack down on car hoons, welfare cheats and drug users, has full access to your messages and location. - Undesirable elements are send to rural areas for compulsory education and 'work for the dole'. - SoCred made public to Shame those misbehaving. - SoCred expands to include 'disrespecting religion', 'mocking the PM'. Companies lose contracts if too many of their staff have low SoCred. - Banks, insurance, schools, employers use SoCred in deciding whether to deal with you. - China and other regimes thank Australia for lighting the way. - The end of the 3rd Age of Crypto.
• taneq 8y ago
  Australian here. I hope Apple etc.do just walk away. Our government has been a continual embarrassment for a decade now and they're just getting worse. Until they start getting reality checks they'll just continue pulling stupid stunts like this.
  • SimplePeople 8y ago
    Absolutely agree. This is a dumb, untenable, largely unenforceable and pointless law. Even if Apple were to start delaying product releases in Australia by six months to do "legislative compliance reviews" or some such. With telcos on-board, this might encourage our politicians to listen to actual experts when touting this kind of legislation.
  • tanbog 8y ago
    This law was passed with support from the opposition labor party. The stupidy here crosses the isle.
    • taneq 8y ago
      Oh, totally. I meant "government" in the sense of the entire institution, not just the current party in power. The whole of Canberra needs to get its shit together.
• kodablah 8y ago
  > I doubt that Apple will build a significant backdoor Why? They clearly have cooperated with countries' requests even if it seemingly went against their principles (e.g. Chinese laws around iCloud data). And they also have a history of not even making it known they disagree, fought against it, or anything via public statement. You won't know whether they comply or not, may not know whether they are OK with it, and judging from history they probably will comply.
• wpdev_63 8y ago
  What do you think apple already does in china? This isn't really a big deal compared to that and bottom line apple is there to make money, not take on political causes.